Anne McGuire: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Like her, I welcome the recent consultation document from the Department of Trade and Industry. It highlights that flexible working has been good not only for parents and children but for businesses. If proof were needed, perhaps hon. Members would like to examine some of the case studies that the document outlines. For example, the Central Scotland Forest Trust has a flexible working arrangement and has experienced a twofold increase in the number of applicants for vacancies, a 9 per cent. reduction in training costs, a 16 per cent. reduction in recruitment costs, and staff turnover has also been reduced by 49 per cent. We are showing the way: flexible working is good for people and for businesses.

Mark Lazarowicz: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the success of the shop a dealer campaign, which is funded from the proceeds of crime and, in little more than three weeks, has already resulted in more than 1,000 extra tip-offs to the Crimestoppers Scotland hotline? Will he take the opportunity of urging the public who have information about drug dealing in their communities to make an anonymous call to the hotline? In view of the success of the hotline and the campaign to date, will he discuss with his colleagues the possibility of using more of the recovered proceeds of crime to extend the campaign beyond 31 March, when it is due to end?

Alistair Darling: May I say to the hon. Gentleman, in the nicest possible way, that he clearly does not understand that restoring the earnings links would not help the poorest pensioners in this country? The reason that we introduced the pension credit and the minimum income guarantee is that half the additional money—the £10 billion more that we have spent on pensions—has gone to the poorest pensioners in this country. That is why we have been able to lift pensioners in Scotland out of poverty. The fact is that restoring the earnings link would be a cheaper policy to pursue, but it would be the wrong policy, as it does not help the poorest pensioners in this country.
	The hon. Gentleman might want to reflect on the fact that, because of the pension credit, 270,000 households with pensioners in Scotland are getting, on average, more than £40 a week because of the pension credit. That would go under the nationalists. He mentioned the nationalist policy, which would cost some £3 billion over five years—money that they have not got. The nationalists' claim that they would help Scots pensioners is therefore a complete and utter fraud.

David Cairns: At the invitation of governor Derek McGill, I visited Greenock prison a few weeks ago to see for myself the cells that Mr. al-Megrahi was to be kept in. Far from being the lap of luxury that some quarters of the press were presenting them as, they were in fact very basic. Does my hon. and learned Friend share my confidence that the excellent governor and staff of Greenock prison will keep Mr. al-Megrahi at Her Majesty's pleasure and ensure that he is properly integrated into prison life, and does she agree that the scare stories that he will be detained in luxury and at huge expense do no credit to anyone?

Christopher Leslie: I certainly agree, to the extent that some in the other place made ridiculous comments about how we were just temporary Members of Parliament, whereas they were the more permanent guardians of our constitution. We in this House are accountable to our constituents, and that is why the Commons must always be supreme. Of course there are ways in which we could improve the legitimacy of the second Chamber; and we must return to that issue.

Brian White: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to make provision for the recovery of certain prosecution costs in proceedings for offences giving rise to a confiscation order.
	In 2001, we introduced the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, whereby the assets of people convicted of serious crime, such as money laundering, could be seized, so that they did not just go to jail and still keep the fruits of their crime to reward them when they came out. That Act has been very effective in hitting criminals where it hurts, but I want to identity two areas where that legislation could be improved by letting others take action and recover their prosecution costs, which they are currently unable to do.
	Last weekend, I visited a constituent who had been the victim of identity theft. In 2001, she moved house and changed all her details to the new home address. In January 2003, a new account was created using her old details, but the crime did not come to light until last December, when she applied for a new mortgage and was refused because of the debts incurred on the stolen identity. As requested by the credit card company, she reported the crime to her local police, but their civilian staff refused to issue a crime number because they said that a crime had not been committed.
	When the inspector went round yesterday, he said that no crime had been committed against the police, so no action was to be taken. He said that it was the bank's responsibility to deal with the fraud and my constituent's responsibility to tell the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the Passport Office and the Department for Work and Pensions about the new identity that might be being used. However, credit card reference agencies will not do anything about the matter because there is no crime number and the police say that it is a victimless crime, so organised criminals are getting away with lots of money. Ironically, this all happened on the same day that Thames Valley police had its web page hacked into.
	The national high-tech crime unit is trying to tackle precisely such crimes—the crimes that the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 was designed to stop. If local police cannot take action due to a lack of knowledge and lack of resources prioritised on the matter, I argue that we need to empower other bodies to do so, such as financial institutions and banks. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), will know that I have consistently argued that the directors of security of banks and communications service providers should be given special constabulary powers to collect evidence and initiate prosecutions, because they are often the people who detect crimes and have the tools to collect evidence and track the money. Those people could play a strong role in not only the detection of crime, but the prevention of crime. We should copy the example of Canada, which has given such people special constabulary status. They do not go on the beat, but use their skills to fight crime.
	There was a story in the Washington Post last week about a gang that stole 145,000 identities in one hit. We are not at that stage yet here, but we might be if we do not take effective action. It is estimated that the current cost of intellectual property crime is about £11 billion and that the Exchequer loses £2 billion in unpaid value added tax alone. Such matters will become crucial during the next Parliament.
	A couple of years ago, Waltham Forest borough council's trading standards department took action against pirates and counterfeiters on its patch. The prosecution was successful, so it applied under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 for assets to be seized, which they duly were. To give an idea of the scale of the task, the prosecution costs were £90,000. One can thus imagine the council's consternation when it found that it was unable to recover the prosecution costs because the assets had gone to the Treasury and there was nothing against which the council could claim.
	If the Crown Prosecution Service had undertaken the prosecution, the costs would have been recovered, with the money obtained through the normal channels. However, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 does not allow non-central Government organisations to recover costs. Those organisations include local authorities and private sector organisations that might take action against organised crime and get a confiscation order, such as the British Phonographic Industry and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Piracy is rife in the music industry. The BPI could take serious action against the pirates—not the 16-year-old kids downloading in their bedrooms, but the piracy industry that has been built up. The sale of pirated DVDs in markets throughout the country costs £400 million a year.
	The globalisation of the world means that if we are to continue to enjoy our standard of living, intellectual property and its protection will be vital. The crime is not victimless. More than 1 million jobs in our creative and high-tech industries depend on us taking action. Counterfeiting and piracy are major sources of organised crime, so we will have a serious problem if we let the problem grow. I argue that closing the loophole and allowing non-governmental organisations to recover their prosecution costs would be a first, yet crucial, step in the fight to secure our future.
	I go further by suggesting to the Government that we should allow such organisations to retain a percentage of the assets seized—I argue that the figure should be 10 per cent. If we did that, the police would be able to create more computer forensic officers. It would also give trading standards departments an incentive to take action because only the best, such as that in Waltham Forest, do so at present. We must encourage others to take action. I am a great believer in incentives, and I am convinced that any money that the Treasury might lose in the initial period would be more than recouped by the assets seized in the extra prosecutions that would be brought.
	Our record as a leader in those industries and the protection that we give our constituents has been jeopardised because everyone is waiting for someone to take action. We should support and encourage trading standards officers who are prepared to act, and they should not have to face the barriers that are an unintended consequence of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. My Bill highlights a problem that will become more visible in the coming years. It closes a loophole and, I suggest to the Minister, it proposes a way forward. I therefore commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Brian White, Janet Anderson, Mr. David Amess, Claire Ward, Helen Jones, Mr. Huw Edwards, Mr. Richard Allan, Bob Spink, Paddy Tipping and Jim Dowd.

Christopher Leslie: I do not accept that we are moving away from independence in the conduct of inquiries. The Bill is as much to do with consolidating and bringing together many of the basic common-sense rules about how inquiries should operate—some of the standing orders, so to speak, setting out how inquiries should proceed. I understand that there are concerns about public access, which I shall deal with later, but I do not accept that independence need be jeopardised in any way.

Christopher Leslie: If Parliament wants to consider any statement, it must find time to debate it, and it would be wrong for me to dictate to it how it should consider particular inquiries. All inquiries are not the same, and they can cover big matters of public policy or specific individual tragedies. Parliament might want to debate some inquiries in more detail than others, so a rigid approach would be wrong.

Tony Wright: I will not interrupt the Minister, if he is about to pay tribute to the Committee's work. Under the 1921 Act, tribunals retain complete control of their proceedings. Under this Bill, that control will be shared with Ministers on a range of fronts. Whatever view we take on that matter, surely the difference is fundamental.

John Bercow: It is always a pleasure to joust with the Minister, but, notwithstanding his soothing bromides, I remain suspicious. Will he tell the House of the circumstances in which, rather than merely adding to the terms of reference of an inquiry, the Government would subtract from them? How might that eventuality arise, because the Bill appears to allow for it? I am not happy about that matter and hope that the Minister will satisfy me.

Christopher Leslie: Yes, of course the inquiry will have access to the information—that is my point. The restrictions would relate to what was publicly available. Of course we want an inquiry to be able to look into these matters even when they relate to national security and we need restrictions on what can be disclosed in the public realm.
	Non-statutory inquiries have taken place in certain circumstances in the past. We feel that although co-operation was possible in some cases, we now need to put public inquiries and inquiries of this nature on to a better, sounder, statutory footing so that they can have more powers to get to the bottom of difficulties and to ensure that their investigatory strength is greater. For instance, there is currently no power to call inquiries into deaths in custody or other events of concern in prisons in England and Wales. The inquiry into the death of Zahid Mubarek in Feltham young offenders institution has had to begin on a non-statutory basis despite the clear value of having statutory powers available for it.
	Nowadays, statutory inquiries can span several subject areas. For instance, the Climbié inquiry was set up under three separate pieces of legislation. The fact that the statutory powers vary slightly from piece to piece can create potential risks to the effectiveness of an inquiry. There is also the possibility that a future inquiry might need to span devolved and reserved business that falls within the responsibility of two different Administrations. One way of dealing with some of those problems would be to make greater use of the 1921 power, but in recent years it has been used very rarely. As the Public Administration Committee commented, the 1921 Act is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as bringing a panoply of procedural requirements and a whole array of attendant lawyers with it. The Act has never been updated either to reflect the 1973 White Paper or to take account of the more recent legislation on devolution.
	There has also been concern here and in the other place about the cost of some inquiries. The Government are absolutely clear that inquiries must have all the powers and resources necessary to get to the truth, but it is entirely proper that the best use is made of public money in doing so.
	With all those issues in mind, my Department and its predecessor have been reviewing the legislation for some years. In February last year, the Public Administration Committee announced its review of the use and effectiveness of independent inquiries into matters of public concern and asked for responses to a paper containing a series of questions about the conduct of inquiries, many of which overlapped with the work that we have been doing in our Department. Accordingly, the Lord Chancellor, my noble Friend Lord Falconer, decided to submit a full response to the questions from the Committee and obtained the Committee's agreement to publish the consultation paper, which was based on our response, in order to invite wider public debate. That was published on 6 May last year. It suggested that the conduct and effectiveness of inquiries could be improved if the 1921 Act and much of the specific legislation were replaced by the single statute that we have before us today.
	At the same time as requesting written responses, we invited people who had been involved with inquiries in the recent past, including a number of distinguished former inquiry chairmen, to join in discussion groups. The discussions and written responses supported our view that the time was right for new legislation on inquiries and showed general support for the views expressed, as set out in the summary of responses that we published on 28 September. We also worked closely with the devolved administrations to create a system that takes account of their responsibilities. We were then ready to bring forward this Bill to provide a comprehensive statutory framework for major inquiries across the United Kingdom. The Public Administration Committee has published its report, which the Government welcomed in their response. I am sure that both documents will help to inform the debate.

Andrew MacKinlay: I was reading clauses 29, 30 and 31 and I am confused because surely the competence for matters that relate exclusively to business that is devolved to the Scottish Parliament and Executive should be that Parliament. Are we not trespassing on matters that are not our competence under devolved constitutional legislation?

Christopher Leslie: We can still hold those inquiries, but we must recognise that legislation on what is devolved and what is reserved has moved on from what the 1921 Act envisaged. That is one reason for the basic necessity to update the legislative framework. For example, if the Dunblane inquiry had been held today, it might well have been more appropriate for it to be set up by the devolved Administration. Some inquiries may involve UK-wide issues. A Sewel motion has been passed by the Scottish Parliament, which has examined the Bill's application to Scotland. We therefore have general agreement with the devolved Administrations about how to proceed. There is no great contention with them.
	Many of the remaining clauses deal with further details of inquiry procedures and funding. For example, clause 39 aims to ensure that challenges to inquiry procedures will come before the courts promptly, minimising the potential for disruption and delay. There are general provisions on legal costs, which will be tackled in more detail in the rules of procedure.
	Over the course of Committee proceedings, I have no doubt that the provisions will be debated in greater detail. However, the aim of the Bill is fundamentally to rationalise inquiry legislation to provide a suitable basis for a wide range of inquiries into events that have caused public concern. It draws together and replaces much of the existing legislation on inquiries, incorporating key aspects of current legislation, such as the power to compel witnesses. It provides clarity on points that have not, until now, been covered in general legislation, such as the duty to publish a report.
	The measure also contains new provisions that are designed to improve the effectiveness of inquiries and keep costs under control, including a power to make rules of procedure under secondary legislation. Those matters might well be technical, but the time has come to modernise that part of our constitution and I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

Seamus Mallon: May I say first that the perception of public inquiries among people in the north of Ireland, where I come from, is somewhat different from the general view of public inquiries carried out in England or Scotland or Wales? That is the case due to the very nature of events and circumstances there, but the essence of the need does not change with circumstances or timing.
	On the very day that I entered the House, the Westland affair was being debated. We remember the inquiry on it, and we have gone from one inquiry to another. Indeed, it is almost as if there are those who perceive the use of public inquiries as a cranks' charter or a means of having an unhealthy view of events. It is neither, and it cannot be in any normal society. Nor should it be allowed to become the plaything of public opinion, political parties, Governments, the legal profession or any institution, because public inquiries are what they say they are: inquiries for the public, by the public, in the interests of the public and of nothing else except justice.
	For that reason, I want to root my remarks in what the Joint Committee on Human Rights states, as it says succinctly what must be said. It says that of an inquiry that
	"it should provide an independent and effective investigation following any death which may have been caused by the actions or neglect of agents of the state. The Article 2 duty to investigate requires that there must be an inquiry on the initiative of the state; that the inquiry must be independent; that it must be capable of leading to a determination of whether any use of force was justified, and to the identification and punishment of those responsible for the death; that it must be prompt and proceed with reasonable expedition".
	I want to refer to some instances in relation to public inquiries that do not meet those criteria and that became part of the whole political negotiations.
	It is a matter of record that, at the negotiations in Weston Park in summer 2001, the Government, in the form of the Prime Minister, made a commitment in relation to at least three requests for public inquiries, with regard to the deaths of Patrick Finucane, Rosemary Nelson and Robert Hamill. That is on record and, for that reason, it is crucial that I refer to them not simply because they are a Northern Ireland matter but because the implications that are entailed are crucial to everybody, wherever they live, because that independence to which the Joint Committee's findings refer and the criteria required by the House in terms of those recommendations are at stake. It is crucial that we do not see either the Finucane or other cases as simply another whinge by Northern Ireland Members, depending on their political persuasion. I emphasise that, because it goes to the heart of what we are considering.
	At those meetings in Weston Park, the Prime Minister gave his word that, if an international judge appointed by the Government to investigate those cases recommended a public inquiry, one would be held. That was a solemn undertaking from the Government, given by the Prime Minister. The exact wording in the Weston Park document states:
	"In the event that a public inquiry is recommended in any case, the Government will implement that recommendation."
	Those matters were considered by Judge Cory, an international jurist from Canada, he made recommendations in relation to public inquiries and we must examine how the reasons for those measure up against the duty to investigate in articles 2 and 3 of the European convention on human rights.
	Sir John Stevens, who cannot be accused of being partial in Northern Ireland terms, and who was a police officer of the highest renown, commented in relation to the Finucane case that he found
	"collusion, the wilful failure to keep records, the absence of accountability, the withholding of intelligence and evidence, and the extreme of agents being involved in murder".
	He added that
	"the unlawful involvement of agents in murder implies that the security forces sanction killings."
	The enormity of that, in terms of what we are discussing today, is fairly obvious to all of us.
	In effect, an inquiry has not yet been held in that case, 17 years afterwards, which hardly complies with the Joint Committee's requirement that it be
	"prompt and proceed with reasonable expedition".
	That is because of the way in which, when that inquiry is held, the finger might point not just at policing or the security services but at those in a much more senior position and still holding senior positions in the administration. That might go as far as ministerial positions. That is why it is crucial that there is independence in relation to public inquiries, and that that independence should not just be a moveable feast between a Minister and the inquiry chairman but absolutely sacrosanct, both in terms of the inquiry and in terms of their independence of pressure from any ministerial figure.
	The Ministers with whom I have discussed this matter know that, when it comes to the Finucane inquiry, it will be a series of withholdings of information under the new legislation, because it will be impossible, as they say in their terms, to give the information required. In a civilised, normal country, what Government can look themselves in the mirror and do away with that independence, as in clause 20, knowing full well that when this inquiry is held, if it is ever held, after 17 years, it will be a series of refusals by Ministers of the information that is so central to it?
	In those circumstances, two matters come into question. First, given the abnormality of the situation that pertained in Northern Ireland at the time—it is far from normal as of yet—is it right, 17 years after the event, to introduce this type of legislation and apply it to circumstances then, when the type of conclusions that justice would demand will patently not be reached? Secondly, is it right that, in effect, a Prime Minister—not a Minister of State or Secretary of State—said in the negotiations, eyeball to eyeball, over a table, "I give my word"? I know the Prime Minister to be an honourable man. I know that, when the time comes, he will show that he will keep his word. However he can only do that if, in effect, he ensures that all the information that is required by that tribunal, when it is set up, is made available to it and will not be the subject of refusal by any Minister.
	I believe that the Prime Minister made that arrangement in good faith, and I look forward to its being kept to in good faith. It is not just the Prime Minister's word that is at stake here because the arrangement was negotiated by him jointly with the Irish Government, who stand guarantor in relation to those three inquiries. If they are not dealt with in the way that was expected then, we shall have to wonder whether those who gave their word did so as a matter of expediency, to buy time until a change in the legislation provided protection for the information involved.
	I do not mean that cynically or harshly. I simply want to put on record that a deal was made and, when deals are made, they must be adhered to. If they are not, people lose the trust of those around them—and in the delicate circumstances surrounding the political process in the north of Ireland, and indeed the peace process in the north of Ireland, there is only one thing that any of us have: the fact that we can be trusted, and that when we give our word we keep it. When we say something and write it down formally in a statement, we abide by it.
	I am very concerned about clause 20. I see shadows of last week's debates. I see ways in which the clause could be used not to further the aims of a public inquiry as defined in the Joint Committee's report but to ensure that what might eventually emerge causes the least possible embarrassment to the Government involved.
	I sincerely hope that that does not happen. I sincerely hope that, in this country as well, the absolute integrity of public inquiries is maintained and protected. But it is not possible to play around in Northern Ireland. It is not possible to take away the integrity of public inquiries in the north of Ireland and believe that the integrity of inquiries in England, Scotland and Wales will not be affected. The rot will set in, and it will diminish public inquiries everywhere—and not just public inquiries, but all who will be involved at ministerial level in preventing the availability of full and proper information.
	I hope that both Ministers will think about that. I hope that they will listen in Committee. I hope that they will put what I have said about Weston Park and the Prime Minister's commitment to the test. I hope that they will go to the Prime Minister and say, "Prime Minister, did you give that commitment? Prime Minister, did you write it on that piece of paper? Prime Minister, did you agree it with the Irish Government?" When the Prime Minister says yes—I know him to be an honourable man, and he will have to say yes—that must be the cue for ensuring that, after 17 long years, at least there will be honesty and integrity in the handling of an inquiry. The inquiry into the death of Patrick Finucane will unearth a good many dangerous things, but let us have it done. Let us be sure that it is dealt with. Let us not try to keep the cover on this one, or it will seep insidiously into every other inquiry.

Lembit �pik: That is true. I ask the hon. Gentleman's forbearance: I shall return to his point shortly.
	If the Bill made it easier and quicker for us to secure a full independent public inquiry in similar circumstances without the heartache, pain and extensive investment of timeand, I have to say, moneythat the parents have experienced, it would be a very good Bill indeed. However, for precisely the reason given just now by the hon. Member for Hull, North, I fear that as it stands there is a dangerhere I use the Deepcut example againthat the MOD will have a disproportionate opportunity to define the terms of reference in such a way that it could protect itself from the worst findings that a fully independent inquiry might produce.
	I ask the Minister to consider and to respond to the point that the hon. Member for Hull, North and I have made. What reassurance can he give that the Bill will make it easier, rather than more difficult, for parents in the circumstances that I have outlined to get the answers and the closure that they have reasonably asked for? In other words, how can we be sure that we are more likely to get the kind of answers that are slowly seeping out of yesterday's Defence Committee report on, and the ongoing investigation by Nicholas Blake QC into, the deaths at Deepcut barracks? How can we be sure that such answers will be more forthcoming, rather than less, if the Bill is enacted?
	On a connected point, will the Minister give us an assurance that we will not have to go through some dozen separate inquiries as a result of the MOD'sand, indeed, the Army'sresistance at every stage to being more open about its information on Deepcut? Will the Bill open doors rather than close them, and will it ensure that families and other interested members of the public have more opportunity to secure a justified public inquiry, instead of feeling left out? To me that is the core question, and an appropriate one to ask at this strategic Second Reading stage. I hope that the Minister can respond, and that in doing he will use Deepcut barracks as an example.
	It is also clear that someone must initiate a public inquiry, and that person will almost always be a Minister. The debates in the other place were very helpful in showing the differences between public inquiries and inquiries by Select Committees. While the latter perform an extremely useful function, in the circumstances that we are discussing today, it must be right that such inquiries be initiated by a Ministerif the Minister is indeed at the very heart of the issue. But let us remember that, as the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and his colleagues pointed out, the Minister must not operate in isolation. It would never be right for Ministers to use that power in such a way as to protect themselves or their Departments.
	I accept that if Ministers set up the inquiry, it follows that they must also set out its terms of reference. But it is also important that they consult widely on those terms of reference, so I welcome the Government's amendments in the other place, which were tabled after considerable pressure from Liberal Democrats and Conservatives. The amendments stipulate that before a Minister sets out or amends the terms of reference, he or she must consult the chairman of the inquiry. It is extremely important, to ensure that there is confidence in the inquiry process, that this provision be included in the Bill, and I welcome the Government's decision to do that.

Lembit �pik: The Minister makes a reasonable point. This has to be a question of degree, and I myself have sometimes criticised legislation for being overly prescriptive or tactical when it needed to be strategic. However, the following two points, which many Members have made, are matters of principle: first, that of Ministers being accountable to this House, especially when there might be a vested interest in protecting the Government from the possible outcome of an inquiry; and secondly, that of ensuring that consultation really does mean that Ministers are obliged to take genuine account of feedback on the breadth of the terms of reference. Those are indeed principles, rather than simply tactical matters, but in fairness I must add that the Government have moved somewhat on these issues in another place. The recorded comments of the Ministerand, I hope, of another Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), who will wind up the debatewill act as a useful precedent in interpreting what to expect in terms of parliamentary etiquette.
	I also concur with those who said that a written statement would probably not be sufficientcertainly not for any public inquiry of significant import. Again, there is plenty of parliamentary precedent for statements being made in the Chamber. For example, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence felt it necessary to announce the Nicholas Blake inquiry into Deepcut on the Floor of the House. That was beneficial because certain matters were subsequently explored and clarified in this place. Secondly, there was a public interest in ensuring that the Under-Secretary's proposals were transparent. Both things would have been more difficult to achieve had the statement been written rather than oral. I hope that the Minister who winds up will confirm that the default assumption will be that public inquiries will be announced on the Floor of this House, rather than in written statements.
	Another crucial anxiety, to which reference has been made, concerns the power to maintain secrecy by restricting public access to hearings and evidence, and the possibility of withholding parts of reports from publication. There are of course circumstances in which withholding such information can be justified. As the Minister correctly said, one such example involves matters of national security; another is when the report in question contains information about a vulnerable individual or a witness. As this is a Bill for all circumstances and all possible future inquiries, it is right to make provision accordingly.
	The Government took a constructive approach in listening to the arguments advanced by my noble Friend Lord Goodhart and people on the Conservative Benches in favour of bringing the Bill under the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It is now clear from the Bill that the power to withhold information does not override that Actanother significant improvement made in the other place.
	On the whole, a public inquiry will be implemented in the public interest, so it is important that information from such an inquiry should not be restricted in the Government's interest. However damaging that information may be to the Government of the day, we must make sure that nothing in the Bill enshrines the opportunity for the Government to protect themselves from any such damaging information. The Government must not be allowed to withhold information on those grounds. We have talked about that at some length, and I am sure that Ministers are clear about the views expressed on both sides of the House.
	Another criticism levelled at the Government is the fact that the Bill was introduced before the Public Administration Committee had completed its report, Government by Inquiry. The Committee recommended an amendment to the Bill, under which investigations into ministerial misdemeanours should be Committees of Parliament. On Third Reading in the other place, my noble Friends supported an amendment tabled by the Conservative peer Lord Kingsland to allow a Minister setting up an inquiry to move a motion before the relevant Parliament or Assembly approving the proposal for the inquiry to be held and approving the terms of reference and identity of the chairman. The amendment, which is now clause 7, is absolutely vital in safeguarding the involvement of Parliament and, I believe, public trust in the inquiry system when ministerial behaviour is under investigation. The reasons for that are obvious.

Tony Wright: One issue that hangs in the air, consequent to our debate so far, is the question of how an inquiry will be established when the Government of the day do not want it to be established. That issue hangs in the air now, as it did in 1921, and as it will when the Bill becomes an Act. That poses a challenge for us. It is often the case that a Government may not want an inquiry when the public and Parliament do, so we must turn our minds to devising a mechanism whereby an inquiry can be established when the Government oppose it. If we dodge that issue, we shall simply continue as we are now, which is to supplicate in the face of an Executive, Please, may we have an inquiry? into something or other, when we, a sovereign Parliament, have the ability, if we are so minded, to establish inquiries when we believe that matters should be inquired into. It is no good bleating about what the Government may or may not do. It is within our hands to do something about these matters if we really want to do so. That is my starting point and also my finishing point, but I have a few additional points along the way.
	Those privileged enough to serve on the Public Administration Committee are used to the Government paying close attention to our work. We notice that they are often minded to accept some of our recommendations, but even we were stunned at the way in which they responded to our inquiry on inquiries. When we began that inquiry at the beginning of last year, to some amusement in some quarters, the Government produced a helpful and substantial consultation document in response, but then took us completely by surprise by saying that they were intending to legislate. We understand why they wanted to do that, but it was certainly not what the Select Committee expected. In the normal course of events, it would have been usual for a Bill of this sort to have appeared in draft form first. It is a Bill that could have been gestating for a long time, eventually seeing the light of day when a legislative opportunity presented itself.

Tony Wright: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, who saw an opening to make his point, but I have to put on record the fact that the Government have been immensely courteous to the Select Committee throughout and have sought to link their work to our work for the better benefit of the legislation. I completely reject what the hon. Gentleman just said. I certainly hope that our inquiry, which has some claim to being the most comprehensive account of the whole inquiry tradition in this country, will help the House in its consideration of the Bill that the Government have decided to bring forward.
	We do not say it often enough, but it is important to say that public inquiries matter. There is scarcely a day goes past without someone demanding one. I suspect that, at some time, every Member of this House has demanded that a public inquiry be held. We usually make such a demand when we cannot think of anything else to say, or when we are not clear what we think about something, and it is usually echoed from all sides.
	The demand is always for a public inquiry, and not just an ordinary one. People want inquiries that are full, independent and judicialoften, all those descriptions are rolled together to suggest that inquiries must be gold plated. If an inquiry does not fit that description, we feel entitled to criticise every aspect of it. If we do not like the conclusion that is reached, we feel entitled to criticise the person who undertook the inquiry, and also the whole process involved.
	As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) said, there are pressing demands for an inquiry into the events at Deepcut. The Government believe that, on balance, no inquiry is needed, but many disagree. However, public inquiries in their myriad forms play an indispensable role in our public life, and always have done. Sometimes, it is worth taking a step back to see how the process works. What functions do inquiries fulfil, and does the process need to be brought up to date?
	The annexe to the Committee's report lists the 89 major inquiries that have taken place since 1900. They display an extraordinary variety, with inquiries established under many different kinds of powers and in different ways. Some have been public, some private, but there is no single model.
	Inquiries are set up for a variety of purposes and in a variety of contexts, but they should be set up because something needs inquiring into. They are investigations, not policy vehicles. Their aim is to find out what happened, or what went wrong, and to determine whether a problem could have been avoided or prevented. They should also provide some reassurance to the people affected that a particular matter is being taken seriously.
	The process of holding an inquiry is sometimes as important as its content. The process shows that a matter is being taken seriously and that it deserves a proper inquiry. In additionand this has not been mentioned in the debate so farthe inquiry process shows us what we must learn to prevent a problem from reoccurring.
	An inquiry should be a learning tool for Government, but that is often not the case. As a result, inquiries are sometimes held into matters that are very similar, and make similar recommendations. In our report, the Committee compared sections of the Franks inquiry after the Falklands war with sections of Lord Butler's inquiry into weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and associated intelligence matters. There are some striking similarities in what the two inquiries have to say about intelligence failures in both contexts.
	Given that inquiries tend to reach the same conclusions, we are entitled to wonder why lessons are not learned in a systematic way.

Malcolm Moss: It is indeed a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) who gave us an extremely interesting insight into his Select Committee's report, which was published recently. It reinforces some of the views expressed in the other place: for example, that the measure may have been rather rushed, given all sorts of circumstances, not least among them the fact that the Committee had not actually finalised its report. His remarks, especially on the history of contracting out some of the particularly parliamentary-oriented inquiries, suggest that there is indeed a glaring hole in the Bill. If the Government had approached it in a more balanced and timely way, the arguments that are being deployed this afternoon could have been incorporated some time ago and a rather different Bill would be before us.
	Given that the Bill is of huge constitutional significance and that the Government published their consultation paper, one wonders why, in the words of the hon. Gentleman, the Bill was not published in draft form, because it would have lent itself strongly to pre-legislative scrutiny. Indeed, the Deputy Leader of the House said last year that
	a Bill should be published in draft form unless there are good reasons for not doing so.[Official Report, 24 February 2004, Vol. 418, c. 19WH.]
	We have had no explanation this afternoon as to why the Government changed their mind about the publication of the Bill in that form.
	We need public inquiries of the kind that we have been discussing. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase drew our attention to the public's appetite for such inquiries. When things go wrong, the first thing people want is a public inquiry, especially an independent one, which suggests that we should be careful when setting up parliamentary-based inquiries. In the current climate, I am not sure that the public at large would necessarily feel that those investigating were doing so objectively.
	The Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 has served us pretty well over the years, although it is used only in particular circumstances. Hundreds, if not thousands, of inquiries have taken place in the intervening years not under that legislation but under more localised legislationif I can describe it thus. In fact, schedule 2 lists existing Acts of Parliament, sections of which will be repealed by the Bill because they will no longer be relevant to the inquiries in those sectors or Departments. The 1921 Act has been used four times in recent years as the legislative basis for inquiries such as those into Bloody Sunday, the north Wales child abuse, Shipman and Dunblane.
	We need inquiries, because we need to ensure that those in public life are accountable. Furthermore, we must also ensure that through the inquiry lessons will be learned and acted on. That is an important ingredient, which we overlook at our cost. We need this legislation and the Opposition will be reasonably supportive of the Bill as it stands, although we should like further amendments in Committee. There is a need for consolidation. Deficiencies have been exposed, especially in the piecemeal, subject-specific powers given to other bodies under Acts of Parliament. There is a case, which the Government have made, that consolidation would be useful.
	The Bill is needed on three counts. First, there is the modernisation dimension. We need to bring our knowledge and information up to date as a result of the history of various types of inquiry. Secondly, we need, if possible, to bring into the new legislation greater independence from Government of such investigations, which will meet with public agreement. Thirdly, in the light of the various ways in which inquiries can be held, an attempt should be made to provide an all-embracing legislative framework to cover more than the existing eventualities. I think the Bill makes such an attempt. We must at all costs avoid the potential for whitewashes, and ensure that new legislation retains all the necessary protections that we have inherited from past measures.
	The Bill was substantially altered and amended in the other place, but why were so many amendments required at that early stage? Given the gestation period of the measure and the fact that even this afternoon the Government have said that there was fairly wide consultation, as well as discussion with the Select CommitteeI think that was confirmed by the hon. Member for Cannock Chasewhy did the Bill arrive in the other place, for its Second Reading and Committee, so massively deficient in so many aspects? One finds oneself concluding that either the Government were rushing it through without thinking carefully enough about it, or perhaps the Executive wanted legislation that gave them enormous powers at the expense of Parliament and other measures.
	I put to the Minister who will respond to the debate the question that I put earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald): are the Government content with the many amendments that have so far been secured, or is it their intention to reverse them when the Bill goes into Committee in this place? That important question needs to be answered.
	Important amendments were made, and we and the other place believe that the Bill was immeasurably improved as a result of those amendments, but if the Government have set their mind to denying those aims, it is as well that we understand their motivation.
	The amendments achieved in the other place refer to the Minister having to consult the chairman of the inquiry before appointing the panel, before establishing or modifying the terms of reference, before appointing assessors and before suspending or terminating an inquiry. It was either a massive oversight or a perverse intention by the Government to allow Ministers to wade in and change all those things in an inquiry without even consulting the chairman. It beggars belief that they thought that such an action would be acceptable.
	The Minister must lay before Parliament the terms of reference and notices suspending or terminating the inquiry. As we have heard already, the Minister must secure the consent of the Lord Chief Justice before appointing judges to the panel. Of course, where ministerial misconduct is an issue, the Minister has the option to move a motion before Parliament that relates to the decision to hold an inquiry and, of course, its terms of reference.
	As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), clause 7(2), which is part of the new clause inserted by the other place, states:
	The Minister may, if he sees fits, move a motion before the relevant Parliament or Assembly for a resolution.
	So such things can take place at the Minister's discretion, and the point that the hon. Gentleman made is an important one for the Minister to address in responding to the debate to clarify whether the Government will seek to water down that provision even furtherI understand that they are unhappy about itor whether they will accede to the wishes of those in the other place who successfully passed that amendment. No doubt, when the Bill is considered in Committee, a similar amendment will be required.

Malcolm Moss: I accept that point. I hope that those who serve on the Standing Committeethe Whip is not here, and I am not asking to do sowill seek to strengthen those words. The word will should replace the word may. After all, if such consultation is important, it should be mandatory.
	A number of concerns have been expressed about the Billnot least of which, of course, relates to the true independence of any future inquiry under the new legislation. I submit the view that the Bill shows a shift in the responsibility to set up inquiries from Parliament to the Executive. Under the 1921 Act, there is a requirement for a resolution of both Houses before such inquiries are established, yet that requirement is not in the Bill.
	A statement must be made by the Minister under clause 6I believe that the other place made that amendmentbut, as had been said already, it can be either oral or written. With a written statement, Members cannot question the Minister about the rights and wrongs of the inquiry or its terms of reference. That provision also ought to be strengthened in Committee.
	The powers of the Minister under the Bill are stronger than hitherto. They are additional to those in the existing legislation, and a proper balance needs to be reached between the Minister's responsibilities and those of the inquiry chairman.
	If the Minister is in control of the terms of reference, he can set them. As we have seen recently with the Hutton inquirythe Butler inquiry was not of the same natureby setting narrow parameters for the inquiry, we can end up with a conclusion that is probably perfectly honourable and proper, given the evidence within those boundaries, but the outcome causes a great deal of disquiet and a lack of widespread support among the public.
	As has been mentioned already in the debate, perhaps the Bill's introduction has been prompted by the Saville inquiry's overrun costs. Its cost has been estimated at between 160 million and 250 million. If that is the case, or if that is an ingredient in the decision-making process that has arrived at the Bill, would the Saville inquiry have been any quicker or any cheaper if the Bill had been on the statute book? That question was rightly posed earlierI do not know the answer, and I suspect that the Minister does not either, but it should be answered.

Malcolm Moss: The Minister might be surprised that I am raising the point, but other people are raising it, too. It is perfectly legitimate to raise such matters during a Second Reading debate. If he wants to respond to the points that I make, he can do so in his winding-up speech. People are saying that the clause is too restrictive and that it will give the Government the power to control the ingredients of an inquirythe people who turn up and the paperwork that is revealed. If he wishes to justify his position, he will have plenty of time to do so at the end of the debate.
	We question the role given to the Minister by clause 26 of determining how to publish the findings of an inquiry and the timing of the report. If the Government are giving chairmen the responsibility of running inquiries, such decisions should be in the hands of those chairmen. We will want to amend the clause to reflect that.

Anne Campbell: A great deal of what I wanted to say has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), so I shall not cover that ground again. However, this is indeed the right time to review the procedures for public inquiries. When the Public Administration Committee conducted its inquiry, the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 was referred to by Sir Andrew Turnbull as a clunking instrument. Events have shown that that is the case. The Act is now not used for most inquiries, because they are conducted using a different procedure.
	I am interested in the extent to which Parliament has been involved in inquiries and the extent to which it will be involved under the Government's proposals. I take complete account of my hon. Friend's point about the way in which the 1921 Act effectively contracted out Parliament's role of conducting inquiries to other bodies. It is time for us to reclaim that ground, but I want to examine whether the Bill gives us grounds to be optimistic that that will happen.
	The 1921 Act provided that Parliament had to pass a resolution to allow inquiries to be given the powers detailed in that Act, which gave Parliament a measure of control over whether an inquiry should be carried out and the conditions under which it should take place. Under the Bill, Ministers will have to make a statement to Parliament about an inquiry's terms of reference and membership. When Ministers make a statement, even if it is oral, there is not a vote. Although one assumes that a Minister would note comments made by Members of Parliament, the House would not necessarily be involved in making the decision. As the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said, the statement need not be oral. I assume that a written statement could be madethe Minister seems to be nodding: that would mean that the House would have no way of expressing its views at that point.
	I have read clause 7 carefully, but given the way in which it is drafted, it does not seem to be of much use at all. If a Minister does not want to bring a case of ministerial misconduct before the House, he will not do so. It is difficult to think of circumstances in which clause 7 would be used. There would be few circumstances in which a Minister would want to bring a matter of ministerial misconduct before the House. The clause is thus superfluous. Although I hope that we can replace it with a stronger measure, I am not optimistic that that will happen.
	I am sure that there are many differences between the Bill and the 1921 Act, but I have picked out only several. Under the 1921 Act, the report of an inquiry need not be laid before Parliament, but that will be required under the Bill. I would like to know the implications of that. Will Parliament necessarily have the right to debate an inquiry report, which it does not have at present? I ask that question perhaps because I do not understand the procedures involved very well.
	Our discussion on terms of reference was interesting. More than one inquiry chairman told the Select Committee that he found it necessary to clarify the inquiry's terms of reference. The Committee recommended that there should be a short consultation period after the announcement of an inquiry to ensure that the terms of reference met the expectations of the inquiry. Sir Michael Bichard said that he found it necessary to take careful note of the terms of reference when he conducted his inquiry. However, we heard in relation to the BSE inquiry that
	Lord Phillips was perfectly able to explore the areas he felt appropriate without feeling totally constrained by three and a half lines in the terms of reference.
	Terms of reference are obviously open to interpretation by chairmen, but it is nevertheless important for us to get them right. The way in which they are drafted should not unnecessarily constrain an inquiry.
	I understand that there is a duty on Departments to report on the implementation of inquiry recommendations. I am interested in the lessons learned from inquiries. The findings of inquiries on foot and mouth outbreaks over the past century have not always been closely heeded. It has been said that if the lessons of the 1967 inquiry had been properly acted on, we would not have had an outbreak of foot and mouth in 2001. That shows that although inquiries are often held and sensible recommendations are made, they are not always heeded and acted on.
	It was therefore extremely helpful of Sir Michael Bichard to say that he would reconvene his inquiry within six months to look at the way in which the Home Office had acted on his recommendations following the tragic events in Soham, which is not far from my constituency. I watched the events there with great interest. I crave your indulgence to discuss the Bichard inquiry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it helps me to explain the circumstances that led to its conclusions. Sir Michael Bichard made many recommendations, including the suggestion that the police establish a national intelligence system for England and Wales and that the Criminal Records Bureau have access to other databases.
	The importance of that came home to me on new year's eve when, tragically, Sally Geeson, a young female student in my constituency, was abducted and murdered by someone who had been identified as very dangerous by the Ministry of Defence when he was court-martialled for the offence of false imprisonment. Sally's relatives naturally called for an inquiry into the circumstances of her death. Lance Corporal Atkinson was known to be a dangerous person, yet he was allowed freedom to become involved in activities that proved tragic for my constituent. I wrote to Sir Michael Bichard to ask whether he would look into the case. The important issue was not so much the circumstances surrounding Sally's death, which had already been investigated by the police, but whether the information known to the MOD was known to the CRB and the police. Strangely enough, the reconvened inquiry published its report today, and at the end Sir Michael says that he understands that the Home Office has written to the MOD as a result of the Sally Geeson case
	to ask whether the military police would like access to the violent and sex offender register so that convictions and intelligence for service personnel are on that system.
	He very much supports that action and recommends that it is pursued urgently.
	It should be much more common for chairmen to reconvene their inquiries after a period to ascertain whether their recommendations have been pursued. That also gives people the opportunity to look at the recommendations and consider whether their scope needs to be broadened to take account of subsequent events. It is terribly important that Departments are encouraged to look at the implementation of recommendations. A procedure should be established so that over time Departments examine recommendations and see whether they have been implemented in the most effective way. That could have prevented a number of tragic events, including the foot and mouth outbreak, which caused so much grief in 2001.
	The Bill represents an improvement on the current position, but amendments could usefully be made to it. As parliamentarians, we should look carefully at our role and see whether there are better ways of becoming involved in what my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase called a parliamentary commission, so that we can consider inquiries into events that concern both the general public and the House.

Kevin McNamara: I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) will forgive me if I do not follow her line of inquiry.
	First, a point about clause 19 made by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) needs to be cleared up. When I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) whether he could give an undertaking, even though it might not be published, that inquiry chairmen would have access to all papers and documents he said yes. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire raised serious doubts about that, so it is of the utmost importance that we obtain clarification when the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) winds up. Will all persons and all papers be available to tribunal chairmen?
	The Bill provides Members with a first-hand opportunity to witness the clash between our democratic ideals and the legacy of Britain's imperialist role in Ireland, where the principles of good governance have collided with sordid self-interest and manifest contempt for human rights and the rule of law. The admirable purposes of the Bill have been corrupted by the refusal of the defence and intelligence establishments to come clean over their collusion with loyalist paramilitaries in the murder of defence solicitor Patrick Finucane. I do not believe that the protection of undercover agents has ever been a prime consideration, but there has been an attempt to hide implications of policy and its implementation. Successive Governments have permitted, wittingly or unwittingly, an undercover war in Northern Ireland to be conducted outside democratic control. I believe, as does the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens, that agents of the Crown have engaged in systemic collusion with paramilitary groups and pursued a policy of unlawful killing and extra-judicial assassination.
	There can be no doubt about the depth of that collusion. In the case of Mr. Finucane, it was a British intelligence agent, Brian Nelson, working undercover in a paramilitary organisation, who selected the solicitor as a target and supplied logistic information to the gang that carried out the attack. It was a Royal Ulster Constabulary agent who, in his capacity as a quartermaster for the Ulster Defence Association, was in charge of the supply and disposal of illegal weaponry used to effect the murder. The murder was not a mystery. The paramilitary who pulled the trigger on Patrick Finucane in front of his family made a full confession to the police. The police officer who took that statement alleges that RUC special branch agents recruited Ken Barrett as an informant and destroyed the tape. As a result of Sir John Stevens's investigations, Ken Barrett confessed in court and was sentenced to 22 years' imprisonment for the murder of Pat Finucane last September.
	We therefore know the identity of all the individuals involved, but we do not know what the policy was, who decided it, who made the decisions to implement it, who hid it, who told lies in court about one individuala colonel, whose name we were not givenallegedly saving a dozen lives or more, and a whole host of matters that are still relevant.
	Because of the confusion and lack of confidence in respect of the death of Pat Finucane, the Irish and British Governments agreed at Weston Park to the demandsmainly of the Social Democratic and Labour partyfor a full public inquiry, if an independent outside judge recommended one, into the deaths of the various individuals that, it was put to them, required particular investigation because of the collusion of the security forces.
	A year later, a Canadian judge, Mr. Justice Peter Cory, was appointed to conduct the investigation. In April last year, he concluded that the security forces were, at the very least, aware of the plan to murder Patrick Finucane and that they failed to intervene. He recommended a public inquiry. This is what Mr. Justice Cory said about the Bill before us:
	I don't know how any self-respecting Canadian judge would be part of it in light of the restrictions on independence it would impose.
	He went on to say:
	If this Act had been in place at the time to set up an inquiry I don't think that there is a judge who would take it on. Its provisions are too restrictive. Independence would be impossible.
	The judge continued:
	My view of the proposed legislation is that it would be extremely difficult to have a public inquiry that would be in any way significant.
	Those are all statements that he made to The Irish Times.
	If that is Mr. Justice Cory's opinion, can the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham, assure us that the Irish Government, who are a party to the Weston Park agreements and who agreed to Mr. Justice Cory's appointment, are satisfied that the terms of the Bill fully meet the undertaking that they gave to the participants at Weston Park? A straight yes or no from the Minister would be welcome.
	It is important to understand the background to the Bill. Following the conviction of Mr. Barrett, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland came under considerable pressure. It had been the Government's policy that they could not hold any public inquiry into the death of Mr. Finucane until all outstanding criminal matters had been disposed of. Mr. Justice Cory did not accept that, but nevertheless that is what happened. When Mr. Barrett was convicted, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State finally announced an inquiry into the Finucane killing that month.
	Everybody expected that the inquiry would be held on the principles of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921. However, my right hon. Friend immediately qualified the announcement by asserting that the inquiry could be established only after the passage of the Bill before us, which would guarantee that the inquiry would hear most of the important evidence in private. What degree of public confidence is created by reluctantly conceding an inquiry and immediately qualifying its openness and transparency?
	I should compliment the Finucane family on their astounding dignity and determination. Their grief at losing a loving husband and father has been compounded by the duplicity of those who are ultimately accountable for his death, by the failure to uncover the truth, by the failure to bring those responsible to justice and by the refusal of the intelligence and security forces to bring their operations under democratic control or behave according to the rule of law. That must have been an enormous additional weight on their emotions, which the family could well have done without, when all they were asking for was the application of the rule of law.
	I should at the same time compliment my colleagues in the SDLP on their tenacity in continuing to pursue the matter of the Finucane, Hamill, Nelson and other inquiries over a long time until they eventually received an undertaking from the Prime Minister.
	When the Public Administration Committee set out to examine the options for reform of the antiquated patchwork of legal provisions for public inquiries, I doubt whether my hon. Friends and other colleagues could have imagined the minefield that they were walking into, where the James Bond world of Robert Nairac meets the despicable trade of Dirty Harry. I pay tribute to the work of the Committee and the care with which it considered the role of the public inquiry in providing a critical component of the framework of checks and balances that is required for effective government and democratic accountability.
	I recognise the quality of the evidence given to the Committee by Members of the House of Lords and others who were able to reflect upon and draw lessons from their own experiences of chairing some of the most important and influential inquiries of the past 40 years. Their lordships' considerations on public interest stand in stark contrast to the narrow and defensive framework of the Bill.
	I refer the House to the correspondence between the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my noble Friend Baroness Ashton of Upholland, and Lord Saville of Newdigate. I shall not examine all the minutiae of the correspondence, partly because of the time that would be required, but with regard to the Bill, Lord Saville wrote:
	As a judge, I must tell you that I would not be prepared to be appointed as a member of an inquiry that was subject to a provision of this kind
	That is a reference to clause 17. He continued:
	This is because I take the view that it is for inquiry panel itself to determine these matters, subject of course to the right of those concerned to challenge in court any ruling that it may make or refuse to make.
	That was in his letter of 26 January. There was a full and detailed reply from my noble Friend, but on 23 February Lord Saville wrote back:
	Once again, may I thank you for . . . addressing in detail my concerns. Sadly, they remain and accordingly I have decided to make them public.
	When my hon. Friend the Minister replies to the debate, can he tell the House whether Lord Saville, who has great experience of inquiries, is now completely satisfied as to the contents of the Bill and has no lingering problems with it? If requested, and subject to the approval of the Lord Chief Justice, would Lord Saville agree to chair another inquiry, if the present one has not wearied him a little of public inquiries?
	Two questions arise. Does the legal framework for public inquiries need to change? The answer is yes. Does the Bill answer that requirement? I think that it does not.
	In the confused history of the powers of different Departments to initiate inquiries, an inquiry under the 1921 Act was the gold standard, despite all the problems associated with it. Under the 1921 Act, the proposal for an inquiry had to be endorsed by both Houses of ParliamentParliament was involved. Such tribunals were equipped with powers to summon witnesses and demand evidence, and reluctant Ministers and officials could be charged with obstruction. Such an inquiry was chaired by a distinguished judge in order to establish its independence and guarantee its authority.
	The Bill will take the initiative away from Parliament. It will allow a Minister to pick his own tribunal chair and instruct the tribunal chair on how to regulate access to the inquiry and whether to exclude the public. It will allow the Minister, or change of Minister, to step in and alter the structure or even the terms of reference of an inquiry. It will allow a Minister to suspend an inquiry or terminate it before completion, and a Minister could also limitcensorpublication of the inquiry report. It will give a Minister powers to dismiss and replace a tribunal chairman on a number of grounds, including that of a difference of opinion about the interpretation of the terms of reference.
	It is little wonder that many distinguished judges have raised the question whether they would serve on an inquiry established under such legislation, believing that such an inquiry might be compromised from the outsetMr. Justice Cory concurs with that assessment. It is true that the ever-evolving effectiveness of judicial review and the monumental protection of the Human Rights Act 1998 provide a safeguard against ministerial abuse, unreasonableness and arbitrary decision making that would have been undreamt of by the legislators who framed the 1921 Act. That is welcome, but it is still a long and cumbersome procedure to go to Strasbourg, despite the incorporation of the ECHR into our legislation.
	When the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley introduced the Bill, it was regrettable that he did not refer to the severe concerns of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am honoured to be a member. The Committee raised many real problems about the Bill, which the Lord Chancellor's long and detailed reply did not completely overcome.
	It is surprising that the Bill does not offer more. It has little to say about the public interest, openness and transparency, the human rights framework within which it will operate and, in particular, the role and rights of victims. It has been introduced because the intelligence services fear an open inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane held under the 1921 Act. That concern reflects not a need to protect agents at risk, but a desire to prevent the intelligence services' operations and methodology from being subject to public scrutiny, which is not the right way in which to assist victims of criminal activity in which agents of the state are implicated and to which successive Governments have turned a blind eye. That is not the right way to address truth, recovery and reconciliation in Northern Ireland or to approach legislation, and I see no reason further to delay an inquiry into the death of Pat Finucane. The Bill has been rushed because of the death of Pat Finucane. It should be withdrawn, and the next Parliament should consider the matter, because there is no immediate demand for a major Bill on inquiries.
	The Joint Committee on Human Rights has produced a substantial report, which I recommend to those hon. Members who have not read it. In particular, it draws attention to our obligations under the ECHR. It is a tragic reality that many of the most pressing circumstances leading to the establishment of a public inquiry involve the loss of life of an individual or of a group of individualssometimes the number of victims is very large. A civilian police investigation and a coroner's inquest may provide an adequate remedy for the families of those who have died, but in many instances, the call for a public inquiry is a result of the failure of the established mechanisms to provide that remedy. Where that is so, the jurisprudence of the European Court is clear that the procedural requirements that it has established for the conduct of an effective investigation will apply to the tribunal itself.
	Article 2 of the convention covers any investigation into the loss of life. My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has already given the conditions that must be met in order to satisfy its requirements, so I will not go into them any further. Article 3, on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, may also be involved, as may article 6 on the right of a fair trial, which in this context means the proper holding of a tribunal and the degree to which an inquiry can attribute guilt and blame and recommend bringing those responsible for events or actions to justice and to trial. That element is lacking from the Bill.
	This Bill has been pushed through not to establish a proper inquiry system, which we do need and requires proper examination and consideration in light of the important report by the Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), but to try to deal with the case of Patrick Finucane, which could have been adequately dealt with under existing legislation. It is being done in this manner not to bring justice but because the Governmentwho were not responsible for the circumstances and were not in office when the events took placeare worried that a stone might be unturned and the worms, filth and dirt that might be revealed are such that they want to keep them covered up. That is not the right way to purge these excesses from our system. I believe that we can go back to the ideals of democracy, openness, transparency and the rule of law that first brought me into this House nearly 40 years ago.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in this debate and to follow some very good speeches, particularly the tour de force by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), who chairs our Select Committee. I do not need to say much, because I agree with everything that he said, but I will have my few minutes.
	I feel privileged to be a member of the Public Administration Committee and to be able to make a modest contribution to it. That is one of the most valuable things that I do in this place. It does some splendid work. I believe that our report on inquiries was first class, and I pay tribute to those who drafted it.
	Having listened to the many witnesses whom we interviewed, I have come to the view that inquiries are even more valuable than I thought when we started. They are an immensely valuable part of our political life and make a great contribution to improving the quality of our debate and information about what happens in our society. They lead to significant improvements in the way in which we run things by illuminating dark corners and exposing important truths that we should know about even if we may not want to. They lead to better policy making and help us to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. I was impressed with many of the inquiry chairs and officials whom we metincluding Lord Laming and secretaries Dr. Tim Baxter and Mr. Alan Evansand interested in what they had to say. However, there are problems with inquiries. They do not often arise, because most inquiries do not directly impinge in any way upon a Government, who can happily set them up because they will not rebound on them.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase mentioned Sir Michael Bichard in the context of the spectrum and continuum of types of public inquiry. At a Public Administration Committee meeting, I said that I did not believe that there was so much a continuum as two distinct types of inquiry. One might be considered other regarding from a Government perspective, in that a local authority or hospital trust might be in difficulty, whereas the other affects Government.
	When inquiries affect Governmentsan extreme example is the Hutton inquirythey become politically controversial. We experience difficulties with that sort of inquiry. My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) detailed some of the problems with such inquiries.
	The Government should accept that sometimes life will be difficult for them and not resist too strongly inquiries that will cause them discomfort. Indeed, in my political life, I try to engineer opposition to what I say when I discuss issues because I learn a more precise truth only when I encounter opposition. If I try to surround myself with people who simply agree with me, I will not be an effective or valuable member of the political fraternity.
	One of the strengths of British Government in the past has been the existence of institutions that challenge them to an extent. We have had strong trade unions and local government, and a strong independent civil service. We have had what is called political pluralism. That is valuable, especially in our political system, which tends to centralise power. When I was a student some 40 years ago, there was a book by F. W. G. Benemy called The Elected Monarch, about the British Prime Minister and how powerful he was. If it was true then, it is much truer now, after several more Governments of both parties. Downing street has aggregated more power than ever and Parliament has been sadly downgraded. Indeed, we might say, in Walter Bagehot's terms, that we have become more the decorative than the effective part of the constitution. That is not right. We live in a democracy and the House should have more power relative to the Executive. That may be uncomfortable and disagreeable for Government, but it is better for the people and ultimately better for the Government. Sometimes Governments get it wrong and they should accept that.
	Unfortunately, Governments of both parties appear to believe that the dialectical debate has been resolved and that all truth now resides in Downing street. That is not so and we must constantly challenge, argue and debate matters. We should debate them in the House, not simply be told what to do and follow the decisions of a small number of people, who believe that they know what is best for us all. Even if I were in their position, I hope that I should want to be challenged.
	The Bill should more closely resemble the Select Committee's recommendations, give more power to Parliament and provide for more openness. That would be a great improvement but, unfortunately, once Governments get into power, they do not like to give their power away. When they are in opposition, they say, We want more democracy, more openness and more debate in the Chamber, but when they get into power, they say, Oh, it's a bit difficult in this particular case. Within months, if not weeks, they have changed their view on some subjects and want to retain the powers that the previous Government held.
	Looking back to the 1960s and 1970s, we had a relatively collegiate form of government rather than prime ministerial dictatorship. The Cabinet genuinely discussed matters. I understandI was not a Member of Parliament at the timethat papers were presented to the Cabinet and open discussions ensued. One gets the feeling that that is no longer the case and that Governments do not welcome a challenge in the way that they once did. I believe that the change will come from the Labour party rather than the Conservative party, but I should like our Government to say, Let's release the reins of central power in Downing street a little. Let's have a little more discussion and collegiality. Let's give Parliament a little more independence. Let's accept a bit more challenge from public inquiries and let's accept that the chairs of those inquiries will be able to publish information without necessarily going through a Minister. That would be healthy for our politics and our political institutions.
	That would have to be done voluntarily and it would take a brave leader, a brave politician, a brave Prime Minister to do it. They would inevitably be giving away some of their own power and, in politics, power is what it is all about. We do not like to give it away. However, it would be much better if we did, and the Bill could provide an opportunity for a Governmentour Government, I hopeto give away a little more power from the Executive to the legislature and, indeed, to the electorate whom we serve. I shall not necessarily serve on the Bill's Committee, but I have one or two amendments that I hope to table through colleagues in Committee, and I hope that they will be accepted.
	We have a job to do now, and that is to persuade the people of Britain that we are genuinely trustworthy and open, that the Government represent what people think and want, and what is in the people's interests, and that they are not just about the concentration of power in the hands of a small number of people who think that they know what is best for us. We have drifted too far in that direction for too long, and I want that drift to be reversed. The Bill could provide an opportunity to move in the other direction, and I hope that the Government will take that opportunity.

Joan Humble: It is a great pleasure to follow so many serious and measured contributions to this important debate. The Bill is a slim volume, but it is an important document not only for Parliament but for many of our constituents, who look to public inquiries to give them the answers that they cannot get from any other source. It is therefore important for us to get this right.
	I welcome the fact that the Government are presenting the Bill as a consolidation measure, but many of the hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon seem to be asking for more than that. Many have welcomed the fact that the Bill clarifies the law, and that it will tidy up untidy pieces of legislation that do not work well together to facilitate public inquiries, especially complex ones such as the inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbi. However, many of us, while supporting that degree of consolidation, also want more clarity about the role of Parliament and the power that we have, as Members, to raise issues on behalf of our constituents and to push for public inquiries. Some of us also hope that the establishment of public inquiries will be easier to achieve under the Bill, because our constituents want answers on many issues.
	Concerns have been expressed about the increasing power that the Bill will place in the Government's hands. Consolidating the different pieces of legislation perhaps emphasises the fact that Ministers have always taken decisions, but those decisions have now been outlined with much greater clarity in the Bill. The Bill proposes to place the control over inquiries into the hands of the Government. Ministers will be able to appoint the chair of an inquiry without any consultation, and they will also be empowered to dismiss and replace an inquiry chair. They will be able to decide in advance whether to regulate or prevent public access to an inquiry. They will also be empowered to vary the structure and terms of reference, and decide whether to limit the publication of the inquiry report. They will be able to suspend or terminate an inquiry before it ends, and to decide that an inquiry should not attribute blame. That is a long list of powers, and we should consider carefully the impact that they will have on those of us who have supported our constituents in asking for public inquiries. Our constituents are not interested in how this legislation helps Parliament; they want to know how it helps them to get answers.
	There are particular issues that I want to use as touchstones to discover how the Bill will help individuals. I make no apologies for that, because if we did not refer to real people and real cases we would be discussing legislation in a vacuum. All too often, we can pass legislation without realising what implications it might have for our constituents, so, if you will allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to mention two particular areas.
	First, I chair the all-party Myodil group. Myodil is the commercial name for a drug that was injected into the spines of hundreds of people to act as a contrast agent so that clinicians could more clearly see the results of X-rays so as to determine whether the patient had a particular illness. That drug was enormously toxic. People who had myelograms then found that they suffered from a very painful condition called adhesive arachnoiditis.
	Glaxo Wellcome withdrew the drug in 1987. There was then a court case, but many individuals who had undergone myelograms were excluded from it. Since then, they have been campaigning for a public inquiry. It has to be said that Governments of both parties have denied them thatbecause, they say, there was a court case, regardless of the fact that many people were not involved. They also say that the way in which drugs are monitored and licensed for use has changed. That is true, but they have left hundreds of people still wanting to know why they had an injection that they were not warned contained a toxic agent that may not have been essential for their treatment. They are suffering pain. More importantly, they are finding out much more about that drugmore than was known years ago. For example, they have found out about how other Governments reacted to it.
	These people still want answers; they want a public inquiry. I have constituents who suffer and are asking me to support them. I get the same response from Ministers that Ministers have given over the past 10 years or more. So, for me, the question is: how can this Bill help? The Minister will still be making a decision. Will he or she make that decision on the same grounds as Ministers have in the past? This is not in the Bill, but will it have guidance attached on the rules within which Ministers will agree, or not agree, to a public inquiry? Will Ministers take into account issues that may have arisen many years ago, on which people still want justice, and still want answers?
	The second example that I want to mention has already been raised by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik)the Deepcut campaign. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, I support the families involved in the Deepcut and Beyond campaign, so I raise again the point about terms of reference that I made in an intervention on the Minister. The Deepcut and Beyond families have been campaigning for many years. There has been a good deal of publicity about the four tragic deaths at Deepcut barracks, but my constituent died not at Deepcut but at Catterick. He was not a young trainee.
	All the debate in the media has been about how the Ministry of Defence looks after young trainees and its duty of care. The very interesting Defence Committee report published yesterday concentrated on young trainees. The issue for many of the Deepcut and Beyond families, however, goes beyond Deepcut and beyond training. In asking for a public inquiry for the Deepcut and Beyond families' campaign, I therefore have real concerns that without involvement by the victims of the issue which is to be the subject of the inquiry, the terms of reference will not satisfy people, and calls will continue for public inquiries to pick up on matters that the original inquiries did not cover. Deciding the terms of reference is therefore important.
	I am concerned that the Bill does not require the Minister to consult others but leaves that to his discretion. How will he use that discretion? My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, when he sums up, might say that every case is different, that some cases will be clear-cut, that the Minister will be able to consult the inquiry chairman, and that that is a fairly narrow issue. All too often, however, there are victims and families who want to be consulted, and that is not mentioned anywhere in the Bill. Those victims and their families are our constituents, so we have a responsibility to be their voice in this place and to demand that that voice is heard.

Lembit �pik: I have listened with great interest to the hon. Lady's comments about Deepcut and Beyond and put on record my appreciation of her work on the issue, with other colleagues, on a cross-party basis. Does she agree, however, that the problem is that the terms of reference are so much in the hands of the Minister that even with this new Bill, as it stands, there is a danger that a public inquiry would be limited to too narrow a remit? Therefore, the inquiry might not get to the answers that the Deepcut and Beyond families require. Does she therefore agree that we are looking for some assurance from the Under-Secretary that the Government are willing to discuss these issues in Committee to ensure that this legislation contains genuine added value for the people who matter mostthe general public?

Joan Humble: The hon. Gentleman has taken the words out of my mouth, as I was going to urge that on the Under-Secretary. In any inquiry that is set up, it is vital that the terms of reference are right. With an issue as complex as non-combat deaths, it is vital to have clarity. As more and more service families learn of the Deepcut and Beyond campaign, they are coming forward with a wide variety of experiences. It will therefore be difficult to decide where the cut-off point should be, but there must be a cut-off point, as no inquiry can be open-ended. It is vital, however, that those with a genuine cause should not be excluded because the terms of the inquiry are too narrowly definedbecause it might be in the best interests of the Department concerned so to define them. We must make sure that if a thread runs through events, that thread runs through the inquiry, too.
	The Under-Secretary should be aware that the call for a public inquiry has been supported not only by the families of the young men and women who have died in non-combat circumstances but by 240 Members of Parliament. That should not just be brushed to one sideand that brings me back to my earlier point about the circumstances in which a Minister will listen and take into account such overwhelming calls from the public and Members for an inquiry.
	As I said earlier, I hope that this Bill will not just be a consolidation but will enable inquiries to have more powers and to be more clearly focused. I am pleased that clause 22 gives the chairman of an inquiry power to compel people to come forward and give evidence, but I note that the exemptions in clause 23 are based on satisfying the test for civil proceedings. What happens if some sort of criminal liability is being discussed? I worry that evidence will not be given to the inquiry because people fear criminal prosecution, and that therefore much of the evidence given will not satisfy those who have called for it.
	Like others, I read with interest the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The report referred to the issue of how inquiries deal with deaths, especially deaths falling within the ambit of article 2 of the European convention on human rights. A public inquiry is clearly not a court of law, but we must ensure that we get right not just the terms of reference but the powers of the inquiry. Otherwise, we shall not secure the justice that so many of us want.
	Clause 2 is entitled No determination of liability. While many members of the public believe that an inquiry should determine who is to blame for what has occurred, the explanatory notes to the Bill state:
	The aim of inquiries is to help to restore public confidence in systems or services by investigating the facts and making recommendations to prevent recurrence, not to establish liability or to punish anyone.
	Although many of those calling for inquiries might not want people to be punished, they certainly want some indication of liability.
	On Second Reading in the House of Lords, Lord Laming said:
	if a train crashes because the driver has gone through a stop light and he is then proved to be drunk while on duty, I would expect the blame to be stated very clearly.[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 December 2004; Vol. 667, c. 1004.]
	That is patently obvious. There will be inquiries when liability should be apportioned to those who are plainly liable. If other proceedings need to be brought as a result, or indeed have already been brought, that will be an issue for the courts. However, those who are asking for justice, as the Deepcut and Beyond families are, want an inquiry that will look into exactly that sort of issue: who is liable?

Kevin McNamara: Article 2 of the convention requires blame to be apportioned. I do not understand why, having incorporated the convention into our domestic law in 1998, we are now introducing legislation which I venture suggest will be usedalmost certainly, in the Finucane caseto deal with causes of death, and trying to cut out the responsibility conferred by article 2. If we do that, the families will be off to Strasbourg again.

Andrew MacKinlay: I will try to avoid detaining the House for long because I know that there are many others who want to speak; indeed, I am very conscious of the request, which Mr. Speaker makes from time to time, that we take such factors into consideration.
	Before I comment on the Bill's content and the supporting documents listed on the Order Paper, I want to draw attention to the fact that this Parliament has well over two years to go. Notwithstanding that, I cannot help feeling that my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) might not catch Mr. Speaker's eye many more times during this Parliament. Their speeches this afternoon were an extremely important contribution to our consideration of the Bill, but they also reflected their great contribution to Parliament.
	It is true that I have not always seen eye to eye with my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman, nor they with me, but I want to place on the record my appreciationit is shared by other Membersfor the courage shown by the hon. Gentleman over many years, and for his contribution to this House. I say that unreservedly and from the bottom of my heart, despite past comments that I might have made, or my past trespasses on certain matters relating to his party. Of course, the same appreciation is also due to my hon. Friend, who has helped me at every stageboth since I have been in Parliament and before. I hope that all Members present concur, and that they will want to be associated with those remarks.
	The Bill is, on the face of it, a satisfactory and prudent piece of legislation, but as I said in my intervention earlier, the test will be whether it alters the culture of the present or subsequent Governments in respect of openness and allowing oxygen in for a full examination of the problems or alleged scandals that arise from time to time. During my period in the House, I have felt frustrated that Parliament is not always fulfilling its role of providing adequate scrutiny of legislation and that Governments are not as open as they should be in a democracy.
	I was particularly aware of that problem after Labour came to office in 1997. The Foreign Affairs Committee clearly had a duty to probe the reasons for the deployment of British troops in Sierra Leone, particularly in connection with what became known as the Sandline affair. It posed the important issue of the interface of Her Majesty's Government and British armed forces with mercenary forces. It is a shame, but the Government immediately assumed that anyone who wanted to inquire into the affair was necessarily opposed to them. That was not the case. I have always taken the view that it is Parliament's duty to know what is going on, particularly when our armed forces are being deployed in potential conflict situations, and certainly when they are dealing with mercenary soldiers. Yet the Governmentand, I have to say, Sir John Kerr, who was in charge of the Foreign Office at that timeput every obstruction in the way of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Speaking for myself, the more they tried to obstruct us, the more determined I was not to be thrown off.
	All that led to a fraught situation. It poses a problem that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) mentioned earlier. When we go into our Select Committees, we try to leave our party politics at the door, but we are creatures of political parties. I certainly found, in dealing with the Sandline affair and then again with Iraq, that considerable disagreement and some unpleasantness broke out in Select Committee between people who were otherwise and hitherto colleagues in the same political party.
	I shall return to the matter in greater detail later, but I believe that the proposal advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase, who chairs the Public Administration Committeethat there should be some form of parliamentary commissionis highly commendable. I hope that the Government will accept some amendments to accommodate that proposal in Committee.
	Since the Iraq war, we have encountered from the Prime Minister downwardsno doubt it has also appeared in briefing notes that are issued from time to timethe argument that goes, What's the problem with Iraq? We have had four inquiries and nothing suspect has been found. I do not want to stray into debating Iraq, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the inquiries are relevant to our debate. Of course, the Prime Minister and others who make that sort of point are overlooking a number of things. They pray in aid four inquiries. One was carried out by the Foreign Affairs Committee, of which I am a member. It and I were subjected to considerable criticism for the way in which we pursued our inquiries. On another occasion, I would be prepared to explain and elaborate all the circumstances[Interruption.] It was flawed, partly because of the Government's reluctance to collaborate in the early stages. I have to say that many of my colleagues, whom in every other respect I consider friends, were bitterly opposed to our inquiry.
	From my experience of the Sandline affair and Iraq, the question of whether or not the Select Committee should hold an inquiry and what it should inquire into was not just a matter of one vote. Whether the inquiry would be sustained depended on vote after vote after vote. Some wanted to close the inquiry and some wanted to stop inquiries into particular aspects of the subject.
	I return to the proposal for a parliamentary commission of inquiry, which could take out that tension and cause of bad blood between friends and party colleagues, not to mention other parties. It will be different if just one vote is necessary to establish a commission on a particular subject, rather than depending on division after division, sometimes week after week, in order that an inquiry can be sustained. Then, of course, one sometimes feels aggrieved, as I have felt when I have been unable to command a majority. I have also felt aggrieved when party colleagues have accused me of voting with the Conservatives. That is deeply offensive. I have nothing personal against our Conservative colleagues, but they will understand that that accusation is hurtful. It has been made on a number of occasions, and I dismiss and resent it, as every time I was voting in favour of holding an inquiry. At the very least, adopting the Select Committee's recommendation will mean that the incidence of such unpleasantness will be greatly diminished.
	The Prime Minister has also referred to the Security and Intelligence Committee. As I have said in the Chamber many times, that is a nonsense. That Committee is appointed by the Prime Minister, who heads the security and intelligence services. It is true that the scrutineers are Members of Parliament, but they are not appointed by this House. The Committee does not use House of Commons Clerks, and its meetings are so secret that Committee members blush when one intercepts them waiting for the white van that takes them to meetings from the taxi rank in New Palace Yard, and asks them where they are going. They are petrified about telling people that they are going to a meeting of the Security and Intelligence Committee at the Cabinet Rooms. The Security and Intelligence Committee's members are obsessed with secrecy, but its reports are prayed in aid as examples of openness.
	Another such example is the Butler inquiry, which was not granted from the outset but rather extracted from Government. In contrast, the Hutton inquiry was appointed on the Government's initiative, but without consultation with Parliament. People should not dismiss that extremely important point. Mr. Speaker was not consulted and neither was Parliament, even though the Hutton inquiry had important ramifications for Parliament's independence.
	Our Bill of Rights has its flaws and deficiencies, but one of its strengths is that it acknowledges that Parliament is supreme. That principle has been translated to constitutions in north America and around the world. We have exported our parliamentary institutions, yet the Hutton inquiry was the first to look into this House's conduct and stewardship of inquiries. Hutton is a judge, but my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase was right to distinguish between inquiries headed by judges and judicial inquiries. The difference is substantial.
	The Hutton inquiry was not judicial. Its principal term of reference was to deal with matters expeditiously. It is always dangerous to tell the person presiding over an inquiry to make sure that it is completed quickly. I wish that Lord Hutton had said that he would not be told by the Government at what speed he should conduct his inquiry. The inquiry included no provision for cross-examination other than in the most narrow sense. Only some people could cross-examine witnesses. Information was not fully disclosed. I made a written submission to Lord Hutton and, to my surprise, it remains secret and outside the public domain. Many other submissions remain secret. In addition, I and my colleagues were not able to make opening statements. The Clerk of the House of Commons wrote to Lord Hutton to remind him of the rights of Parliament under the Bill of Rights, and that this place has comity with the courts.
	In retrospect, I believe that the status of Parliament should have been made clear, and I hope that that will happen in future. Although I have got into trouble before for saying so, I repeat that I believe that this is the high court of Parliament. We need to safeguard that status jealously. To do otherwise would be foolish in the extreme, for Parliament and for the constitution of our parliamentary democracy.

Andrew MacKinlay: Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will notice that Lord Denning's report is referred to in the report of the Public Administration Committee.
	My hon. Friend is correct. He was elected because of the great prudence of Harold Wilson who pursued the then Conservative Government for setting up a committee of inquiry that sat behind closed doors. It was headed by a judge whom Mandy Rice-Davies referred to as a sweetie.
	The parliamentary commission of inquiry commends itself to me. The Transport Committee adequately deals with inquiries on matters such as the location of airports. The Foreign Affairs Committee adequately considers our overseas missions and so on, but it also considered Sandline and why we went to war in Iraq. It can consider the broad issues relating to the war against terrorism, but we are not detectives. The Sandline and Iraq cases involved the Government, security forces and bitter opinion on both sides. It was difficult for us to probe adequately because that is not our function. However, uniquely in Parliament, the Public Accounts Committee can do that because it has the valuable tools of the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General.
	As I read the Public Administration Committee's report and its recommendations, it believes, as I do, that when Select Committees deal with what my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire referred to as highly charged political issues, there should be pre-examination by the equivalent of the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General who can be a detective and caution witnesses, Ministers and Departments. With the need for candour and full disclosure, that can be done behind closed doors.
	The painful experience of the past two years has persuaded me that cameras should not be allowed in courts and inquiries where rigorous examination takes place. Pre-examination would take place behind closed doors. The Committee would receive a report from those who carried out the investigation, as the Public Accounts Committee does. That is what happens in the US. Then, the Committee could deliberate in public and in private and produce its report on the detailed findings obtained by the examination officer on behalf of Parliament. That would be fairer to witnesses and there would be fewer cover-ups, whereas at the moment we see many cover-ups on fraught, highly charged political issues. It would be a great step forward and I hope that the Minister has an open mind on the issue.
	Mention was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) of the Osmotherly rules. Until they are clarified, we will always have people such as Sir John Kerr trying to use the Osmotherly rules to obstruct witnesses from Departments appearing before Select Committees. We need to tackle that problem, but the proposals by the Public Administration Committee may alleviate the tensions that have occurred when Committees have demanded that civil servants should appear before them.
	I was interested to see that clause 36, entitled Offences, states:
	A person is guilty of an offence if during the course of an inquiry he does anything that is intended to have the effect of . . . distorting or otherwise altering any evidence, document or other thing . . . or . . . preventing any evidence, document or other thing from being given . . . or . . . intentionally suppresses or conceals a document.
	And it continues. However, a few months ago, the House of Commonsfoolishly, in my viewvoted to do away with Sessional Orders that encapsulated those offences. That was a big mistake and I hope that we will revisit the issue. A culture has developed in which it is felt to be wholly legitimate to mislead or to fail to make full disclosure to parliamentary Committees. More worryingly, it is seen as perfectly proper for employers and managers, in both the public and private sectors, to lean on witnesses so that they are not candid with parliamentary Committees. It is amazing that we decided to do away with the Sessional Orders, which made it a high crime and misdemeanour to lean on another person to be less than candid before Parliament. I would like to table an amendment in Committee to extend clause 36 to Parliament, bearing in mind that we have comity with the courts and we are the high court of Parliament.

Gordon Prentice: Yes, supine. We must construct mechanisms that translate the theoretically awesome power of Parliament into something that works on the ground. Otherwise, as my friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) said, we are just a decorative part of the constitution. We should be more than that.
	A few other things have troubled me, so I am going to get them off my chest. The first is the whole business of inquiries being chaired by judges. I agree with the amendment adopted in the other place that the appointment of a judge as a chair of an inquiry should be a matter of co-decision between the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice, or another relevant leader of the judiciary. There was quite a spat about that in the other place, which led to the Lord Chancellor and Lord Justice Woolf locking horns. In the Government's response to the Select Committee's recommendations, they said that they were
	unable to accept the Committee's recommendation
	on co-decision,
	which would give the Lord Chief Justice or other senior judge a right of veto over the appointment of any serving judge.
	I ask my friends on the Front Bench whether the Government will resist the amendment and try to reinstate the Bill as originally drafted in Committee. I hope that they will not, because the provision has the support of both Labour and Opposition Members.
	My friend from Cannock Chase touched on the appointment of wing members. Wing members could offer advice, counsel and sometimes common sense to the personoften a judgechairing an inquiry. That is a good idea. Lord Hutton was marvellously open and relaxed about his inquiry's conclusions when he appeared before the Select Committee. He confessed that he was ignorant of the machinery of governmentI am not breaching any confidences, because this is what he told the Select Committeeand had not thought through the implications for freedom of government when he posted emails between Jonathan Powell and Alastair Campbell on the net so that billions of people around the world could see them. He did not realise that that would have a huge ripple effect and would have implications for future inquiries.
	Lord Hutton also confessed that he knew little about the media. Greg Dyke was excessively scathing when he said that the Hutton report was just
	a cut and paste job.
	He, along with Gavyn Davies, was one of the many casualties of the report. When major inquiries report, some people lose outthey lose their reputation and their job, and they might lose everything. It is therefore important to have a system for establishing inquiries that is as fair as possible. Judges may be skilled at ferreting out the truth and the facts, but in my experience, they need expert wing members to give them counsel. I am reminded of Lord Scott, another judge who worked alone for many years on his arms to Iraq inquiry. Geoffrey, now Lord, Howe said that Scott got lost in a swamp of detail. To this day, in my little study at home I have Scott's five volumes, but as the years pass, I find it more difficult to pick them up. It was an enormous great investigation, but there was far too much detail. I feel very strongly that it should be obligatory to give evidence on oath.

Jonathan Djanogly: I declare any interest that I may have as a practising solicitor.
	The debate has been interesting, though relatively short. As the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) said, the Bill is short, but involves issues of constitutional importance that demand our due consideration. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) and others recognised that inquiries fulfil an important social role. They can provide a platform from which to ascertain the facts surrounding issues of public concern. In turn, that provides catharsis, allowing us to learn from events, to apportion blame where appropriate and to provide reassurance for the future.
	In recent years, the numerous important inquiries fall into three broad categories. First, inquiries of urgent public importance based on the 1921 Act, such as the Dunblane and Shipman inquiries. Secondly, inquiries based on subject-specific legislation, such as the Stephen Lawrence and Victoria Climbi inquiries, which were based on the Police Act 1996 and the National Health Service Act 1977 respectively. Thirdly, many ad hoc inquiries have been conducted without any statutory base, such as the BSE and Hutton inquiries. The Bill provides a model for consolidating legislation in that area.
	In debating the Bill today, we have had the benefit of several reports on the subject, including Effective inquiries, the Department for Constitutional Affairs consultation paper on which the Bill is largely based, the Public Administration Committee report and the Joint Committee on Human Rights report. We have also had the benefit of much debate and progress in another place, where the noble Lords identified the salient issues and introduced several amendments. As is clear from today's debate, several further amendments are required before the Bill is acceptable to all parties.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said, the Conservative Opposition welcome the introduction of new legislation to update and consolidate the current piecemeal approach to inquiries. The 1921 Act is inflexible and cumbersome and therefore rarely used. Subject-specific powers do not provide a suitable alternative, because an inquiry's subject matter may fall in the gap left between the various legislative powers or, conversely, be covered by more than one statute.
	As many hon. Members have pointed out, the non-statutory path is unattractive, because it provides no basis on which to compel witnesses to come forward, to require evidence to be submitted and to provide protection from external influences. In his earlier comments, the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), frequently referred to the many different types of inquiries as his defence against the charge of the centralisation of power in the Executive and the removal of parliamentary approval entailed by the Bill. That is a red herring, in so far as the Bill's stated purpose is to consolidate, and I hope that the Minister was not implying that the consolidation approach is a non-starter.
	The Conservative Opposition welcome many of the amendments introduced in another place, particularly those that seek to redistribute the proper balance of power. As the hon. Members for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) and for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) have pointed out, the Lord Chief Justice must now consent to the use of judges on inquiry panels, a decision that should never have been in the hands of Ministers. I agree with the hon. Member for Thurrock, who warned the Government not to change their mind about that provision. In that context, certain key ministerial decisions and reports by inquiries must now be laid before Parliament, which will allow transparency and the possibility of debate, where it is required, even if, as various hon. Members pointed out, it will not ensure debate.
	As the shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire, said, the Opposition in the Lords have also secured an alternative parliamentary basis for setting up an inquiry, where the subject matter includes ministerial misconduct. As Lord Kingsland put it in the other place:
	It is plainly ludicrous . . . that a Minister should investigate his own conduct or that of any other Minister who is in the Government of the day.[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 January 2005; Vol. 668, c. GC192.]
	The optional use of Parliament in such circumstances will go some way to curing the constitutional imbalance between the Government and the relevant assembly, but it will not go far enough. We will be arguing for obligatory parliamentary involvement, such as the parliamentary commission advocated by the Public Administration Committee, when ministerial conduct is in question.
	Earlier today, the Minister said that he is reconsidering clause 7. We will carefully study his remarks, but with some concern, as this is an important issue that should not be diluted. I was pleased to hear the Liberal Democrat spokesman supporting our concerns in this regard.
	The Opposition will table several further amendments to the Bill as it stands. I am in full agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) and with several hon. Members on the Government Benches that just because the Government present this Bill to us one week before the likely start of a general election campaign does not mean that Conservative Members should avoid giving it the oversight that it deserves. We have identified various areas that demand specific attention, including the role of Parliament in the establishment of an inquiry, as set out by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire, costs and the worrying imbalance of powers between the Minister

David Lammy: We have had a frank, illuminating and wide-ranging discussion this afternoon on the role of inquiries in our democratic system, and I am pleased that hon. Members across the House agree that there is a need for reform of the legislation on inquiries. I am grateful for the support that has been expressed by the hon. Members for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) and for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), and by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik).
	We all agree that this should not be a party political matter. We must not lose sight of the fundamental importance of inquiries in highlighting issues of public concern. In that regard, we heard from the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), and from my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble), for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins).
	I want to associate myself with some of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock when he paid tribute to my hon. Friends the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who might have made their last contributions in Parliament today.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Inquiries Bill [Lords]:
	Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
	Proceedings in Standing Committee
	2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 24th March 2005.
	3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	Programming Committee
	6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	Other proceedings
	7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed.[Mr. Ainger.]
	Question agreed to.

Queen's recommendation having been signified
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Inquiries Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of
	(1) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown or the Treasury under the Act;
	(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.[Mr. Ainger.]
	Question agreed to.

Stephen Ladyman: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) for raising this important topic and for his tireless campaigning on this and other health issues. His zealousness extends to those rare occasions when I treat myself to fried egg and chips in the Tea Room, when he sits next to me looking like an abandoned puppy and tutting when I put salt on my chips. Like him, I believe the Government have done well on the issue, but we can always do more. I hope I can reassure him that the Government recognise the continuing importance of efforts to reduce cholesterol levels. Reducing the incidence of heart disease is a key priority, and as he rightly says, reducing cholesterol is the key to success.
	Coronary heart disease, or CHD, remains a major cause of death and disability, and risk factors in addition to elevated blood cholesterol levels include age, sex, hypertension, smoking and diabetes. As my hon. Friend realises, the cornerstone of CHD prevention is lifestyle modification, particularly through dietary change, to modify both the quantity and the quality of the fat consumed and to increase levels of physical activity.
	Although it is the total level of cholesterol in blood that is the main risk factor for CHD, there is good and bad cholesterol. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations are directly associated with CHD risk, and reducing levels of LDL-C lowers CHD risk. Over the past 20 to 30 years, dietary intake of saturated fatsfor example, animal fatshas been discouraged because they may raise cholesterol levels, and the replacement of saturated fat with oils rich in linoleic acid, such as sunflower oil, is encouraged as a means of reducing CHD risk. The consumption of complex carbohydrates as a replacement for saturated fat is also encouraged.
	As my hon. Friend has pointed out, we cannot expect the public to be food chemists or dieticians, so it is important to translate the advice into a more usable form. The Government therefore provide practical guidance on how consumers can reduce the saturated fat in their diets through healthy eating advice. As part of a balanced diet, foods rich in saturated fat must be replaced with unsaturated fats, such as oil-rich fish and foods containing oils such as sunflower oil, rapeseed oil and olive oil.
	The Department of Health also funds a range of non-governmental organisations to increase awareness of the benefits of eating a healthy diet and of having an active lifestyle. Replacement of saturated fats with monounsaturated oils, such as rapeseed oil and olive oil, also has beneficial effects on blood LDL-C levels, which are similar to polyunsaturated fatty acids in their effect. More recently, industry has been active in making available foods that contain phytostanolsfor example, in the form of spreadswhich can also help to reduce blood cholesterol. Those products may not be easily accessible to everyone because of their price, but they are a means of self-help for some.
	Government activities to promote healthier eating have had some success. The latest national diet and nutrition survey of adults from the ages of 19 to 64 indicates that, on a population basis, average intake of total fat has now reached the level recommended by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy, which is 35 per cent. of food energy being derived from fat. In contrast, the intakes of saturated fat remain higher than the recommended level at 13 per cent. of food energy compared with the recommended level of 11 per cent.
	Following the publication of the public health White Paper, we published a delivery plan last week that explains how the Government will put those plans into practice. It includes 45 big wins that evidence suggests will make the greatest impact on health, and it also covers the policies and programmes that will be developed and implemented, targets to improve health and partnerships between industry, the voluntary sector, professional groups, local authorities and the NHS.
	There are two plansthe food and health action plan and the physical activity planthat set our actions to deliver improvements in diet and physical activity. The food and health action plan aims to improve diet and nutrition in England. It concerns the food that people eat, which influences the risk of developing chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular diseases and some cancers. Recognising that a significant proportion of the population consumes more than the recommended amount of saturated fat and sugar and less than the recommended amount of fruit and vegetables, the plan prioritises nutrition to reduce the consumption of fat, saturated fat, sugar and salt, and to increase the consumption of fruit and vegetables in the population.
	The food plan presents the action that the Government will take across a wide range of areas. It sets out how we can develop healthy eating in a consumer society and how information can be improved to enable healthier choices. We are developing nutrient criteria to help identify which foods can be promoted to children and to signpost foods to make healthy choices easier to make. It encourages healthy eating behaviours in children and young people through a whole-school approach to healthier eating; promotes opportunities for healthy eating in the communities in which we live through, for example, the five-a-day community initiatives; ensures that the NHS promotes healthy eating in all aspects of its work; promotes opportunities for healthy eating in the workplace and for ensuring that the public sector leads by example through, for example, developing guidance on good practice in food procurement in the NHS and across other public sector services; and it requires us to work with the food industry to increase the availability of and access to healthier foods that have reduced levels of fat, saturated fat, sugar and salt, to make healthy foods the norm rather than the exception.
	The physical activity action plan brings together all the commitments relating to physical activity in Choosing Health as well as further activity across Government. That will contribute to increasing levels of physical activity. It sets out detailed action at national, regional and local levels to improve people's health through participation in physical activity. This represents the first truly cross-Government plan to co-ordinate action aimed at increasing levels of physical activity across the whole population, as recommended by the report, Game Plan: a strategy for delivering Government's sport and physical activity objectives, in 2002.
	Our action on physical activity will: ensure high quality, well-targeted and attractive provision for walking and cycling; create and maintain a wide range of opportunities for activity through recreational activity and sport; encourage activity in early years, school, and further and higher education; develop services within the community health care system to provide ongoing support to achieve sustainable behaviour change; and encourage employers in the public, private and voluntary sectors to engage and motivate staff to be more active.
	As already emphasised, it is important to maintain optimal levels of blood cholesterol, with the ideal being, as my hon. Friend said, 5 millimoles per litre. The UK average is well above that at 5.6 millimoles per litre, with nearly two thirds of men and women having raised levels of blood cholesterol. In many cases, elevated levels of cholesterol can be treated by adopting healthier lifestyles. The key is to avoid being overweight, exercise regularly and eat less saturated fat.
	The first route to managing raised cholesterol levels is through dietary modification. If levels continue to be high, medication is required, usually in the form of statins, which my hon. Friend mentioned. In addition to changing the quality of fat in the diet by reducing saturated fat and eating a variety of at least five portions of fruit and vegetables a day, statins can help to prevent heart disease, stroke and some cancers. The five-a-day programme includes a communications programme to increase awareness of the benefits of eating five portions of fruit and vegetables a day, and to encourage increased consumption of fruit and vegetables. A recent study showed that each increase of one portion of fruit and vegetables a day can lower the risk of coronary heart disease by 4 per cent.
	Alongside diet, I reiterate the importance of physical activity. There is considerable evidence that physical activity can help to improve blood cholesterol levels. The main benefit appears to be improved levels of the good high-density lipoproteinHDLcholesterol. A simple measure such as regular walking of at least 30 minutes a day can help to reduce the risk of heart disease. A low level of cardio-respiratory fitness is an independent risk factor for coronary heart disease. Increasing levels of cardio-respiratory fitness can lessen the harmful effects of other risk factors for coronary heart disease such as high cholesterol, smoking or blood pressure.
	As my hon. Friend stated, heart disease remains the biggest killer, with the disadvantaged being more vulnerable. Tackling risk factors of heart disease, including elevated levels of blood cholesterol, is vital to the delivery of our public service agreement target, which not only focuses on heart disease but aims to reduce inequalities in health. The PSA target calls on us to substantially reducefrom the Our Healthier Nation baseline of 199597
	mortality rates by 2010 from heart disease and stroke related diseases by at least 40 per cent. in people under 75, with at least a 40 per cent. reduction in the inequalities gap between the fifth of areas with the worst health and deprivation indicators and the population as a whole.
	The Department of Health has explicitly signed up to deliver by 2010 a 40 per cent. narrowing of the gap between the country as a whole and the worst hit areas. The latest figures show that we are well on track to deliver that, with a 22 per cent. narrowing of the gap since 1997. The extra 500 million announced for the spearhead primary care trusts in the worst hit areas will be an important boost to that effort.
	Primary care has a vital role to play in tackling the risk factors of heart disease. That is why we also have a priorities and performance framework, or PPF, which requires primary care practices to update practice-based registers so that patients with CHD and diabetes continue to receive appropriate advice and treatment in line with national service framework standards, including the recording of blood cholesterol levels and body mass index. Evidence from the primary care and CHD collaboratives suggests that the large majority of practices have registers.
	Our second line of action on prevention is to resort to drug treatmentstatinsas the last resort. Statins are lipid-lowering drugs, which are cost-effective in reducing heart attacks and deaths from CHD. They are potentially beneficial to a wide group of patients either with existing CHD or at risk of developing the disease. They are also one of the major cost drivers of the CHD national service frameworkNSF. For that reason, the NSF recommended that the roll-out of statins prescribing should be staged, starting with people with diagnosed CHD, and progressing to those at risk.
	That is now further reinforced in the quality indicators for the new general medical services contract, which include cholesterol management for patients with existing CHD. The number of statins prescribed continues to rise by around 30 per cent. a year. Nationally, approximately 1.5 million people currently receive them. That potentially saves around 6,700 lives a year and prevents many more people from having heart attacks.
	The Wanless report suggested that statins should be prescribed for patients with lower levels of CHD risk than indicated in the NSFa 15 per cent. risk over 10 years as opposed to 30 per cent. in the NSFand that that would lead to a prescribing cost of 2.1 billion by 2010.
	A statinsimvastatinwill soon be available over the counter for sale to people at moderate risk of CHD, to help them reduce their risk by lowering their cholesterol. The pharmaceutical company will undoubtedly conduct its campaign to raise awareness of those benefits to potential customers.
	My hon. Friend raised the importance of promoting awareness of the risk of raised blood cholesterol, and I agree that it is important for people to be aware of their cholesterol levels. Although population-wide cholesterol testing is currently not feasible, primary care practices are encouraged to identify those at risk of heart disease.
	Primary care trusts will have to set local targets in their local delivery plans to cover better management of blood cholesterol and blood pressure levels. We agree that increased awareness of one's health risks can be a motivating factor in making lasting lifestyle changes, so the Government are committed to supporting people by a new kind of personal health resource in the form of NHS health trainers drawn from local communities with an understanding of the day-to-day concerns and experiences of the people whom they support. Health trainers will work with individuals to develop personal health plans as a tool to identify their priorities for health and create tailored advice to make the necessary lifestyle changes. Health trainers will be accredited to provide general advice, and for those who need specialised help, they will help access the relevant NHS services.
	I wish to reiterate that the Government's drive to reduce mortality from heart disease is to address all risk factors such as obesity, diet, physical activity, smoking and so on and, more important, raise awareness among people through clear and credible tailored information, helping people to take responsibility for their own health.
	As I said at the beginning, I believe, like my hon. Friend, that the Government have done some excellent work on this. However, there is always more that we can do. I shall ensure that the Minister for Public Health studies my hon. Friend's comments to ascertain where we can improve on what we are already doing. However, I hope that I have reassured him that the Government do not take the issue lightly. We are determined to reduce coronary heart disease rates in this country, and we understand that the key to doing that is to reduce people's cholesterol levels and improve their lifestyles generally.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Seven o'clock.